디지털 경제와 핀테크 - 소비자 보호를 중심으로 -
Digital Economy and FinTech in the view of Consumer Protection
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
핀테크는 디지털경제와 결합되어 이전의 아날로그경제에서는 예상할 수 없었던 혁신을 실현시켰고, 제4차 산업혁명의 진전과 더불어 현재 그 영역이 크라우드펀딩, P2P 렌딩, 인터넷뱅킹, 인터넷전문은행, 블록체인과 분산 원장 기술, 빅데이터 및 인공지능의이용으로 계속 확대되고 있다. 본고에서는 디지털경제에서 핀테크의 시원과 현황을 개관하고 그것의 규제가 혁신과 소비자보호의 관점에서 갖는 함의에 관하여 고찰하였다. 핀테크는 해당 혁신기업에게는 혁신적 기술을 이용한 창업이나 사업 성장을 가능하게 해주는 것은 물론 관련시장의 소비자잉여를 증가시켜서 국민경제 전체의 소비자후생을 증진시키는 광의의 소비자보호를 위한 긍정적 역할을 하고 있다. 그러나 핀테크는 소비자가 이해하기 어려운 기술적 특성으로 인하여 오히려 금융 사기나 개인정보유출, 정보비대칭에 수반되는 불완전판매 등으로 소비자피해를 유발할 수도 있다. 핀테크산업의 발전을 위하여 기존 기업들에게 요구되던 규제를 핀테크기업에 대하여 완화하거나 철폐해야 하는 것은 아니다. 예컨대 우리나라는 「금융혁신지원 특별법」 에 의하여 영국에서 시작된 규제 샌드박스제를 핀테크에 대하여 시행중이다. 규제 샌드박스는 산업의 혁신을 위하여 큰 도움을 주는 제도이지만, 소비자들과 금융시스템에대한 위험이 실질화될 수 있다는 점, 그러한 이유에서 고객들은 샌드박스내의 기업들과의 거래에 참여하지 않을 수 있고 이것은 핀테크의 성장을 지연시킬 수 있다는 점 등의 단점을 가진다. 금융소비자의 보호 없이 핀테크를 통한 금융시장의 혁신과 번영은 이룰 수 없는 것이므로 소비자보호라는 정책 목적은 규제완화의 한계이다. 보다 근본적으로는 규제형식의 변화와 불필요한 규제의 폐지가 필요하다.
Abstract
FinTech is the term used to describe the impact of new technologies on the financial services industry. As the 4th Industrial Revolution is making progress, crowd funding, P2P lending, internet banking, online bank, block chain and distributed ledger technology, big data analytics and artificial intelligence have given rise to new services and business models by established financial institutions and new startups. This article aims to survey the inception and present condition of FinTech and to explore the implication of regulating FinTech firms in the viewpoint of innovation and consumer protection. The portion of the FinTech firms (including FinTechs and TechFins) is more and more increasing in the financial services market. And the FinTech changes rapidly and continuously. Fintech is at the confluence of various digital technologies and financial areas, regarded as positive in the eye of consumer protection in the wide sense with helping many startups and scaleups proposing innovative financial services and producing consumer surplus in the relevant market and improving consumer welfare in the national economy dimension. However established financial services businesses are facing some of the challenges that fintech firms initiate and they will feel receiving unfair treatment if FinTech firms are exempted from existing regulation. The Framework Act On Administrative Regulations defines that Regulations as restrictions on the rights of citizens (including foreigners subject to Acts of the Republic of Korea) or duties imposed thereon by the State or local governments to accomplish a specific administrative objective, which are prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes, Municipal Ordinances or Municipal Rules. For the improvement of FinTech, it is not necessary to exempt FinTech firms from the regulations all the existing financial services should comply with. Rather, we should consider the necessity of a deregulation in particular from all financial services firms. Success of FinTech firms should be resulted not from preferential treatment but from their innovation. Due to the difficulties accompanied with understanding FinTech, consumers could be harmed from financial fraud or incomplete selling of financial products. Namely FinTech could give rise to the consumer protection problem in the narrow sense. Generally, although regulators around the world have been careful to avoid early regulation of cryptocurrency-related activity so as not to stifle innovation, and so as to better understand a technology that is still in its infancy, yet fast developing, high levels of fraudulent activity and potential harm to consumers are now clear drivers towards selective regulation and greater guidance in this field. Since the FCA launched its regulatory sandbox, there has been a proliferation of sandboxes announced by other jurisdictions including Australia, Singapore, Abu Dhabi, and Hong Kong. The Republic of Korea launched regulatory sandbox for FinTech since April 2019 when the Special Act on Support for Financial Innovation was enforced. Because testing in the sandbox is not fully regulated, risks for consumers and the financial system could materialize in the regulatory sandbox. And clients, for that reason, may refrain from entering into business with FinTech firms in the sandbox and this may slow the FinTech’s growth. Therefore the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Securities and Exchange Commission in the U.S., the German BaFin as well as both French regulators APRI and AMF have declined to create regulatory sandboxes. Without ensuring consumer protection, we could not anticipate the financial innovation and prosperity in the market. So the purpose of consumer protection is limit to the deregulation policy. The fundamental solution for overcoming various obstacles would be the substituting principle-based regulations for positive regulations and the abolition of unnecessary regulation. The so-called RegTech has the potential to free up large sums of operational and capital expenditure which are currently spent on compliance and to enable us to develope smart regulation.
참고문헌 (47)
- 강영기, "일본에서의 P2P lending 비즈니스와 법적 규제에 대한 고찰", 상사판례연구, 31(2), pp.241~278 (2018), 한국상사판례학회[DOI]
- 김두진, "핀테크산업 발전을 위한 법제 개선방안 연구", 경영법률, 27(2), pp.405~453 (2017), 한국경영법률학회
- 김용재, "인터넷전문은행의 도입에 즈음한 은산분리 정책의 재검토 : 은행법상 소유규제 위반시 사법적 효력", 금융법연구, 12(3), pp.037~070 (2015), 한국금융법학회[DOI]
- 김은경, "유럽연합에서의 핀테크 산업과 법의 적용 - 지급결제지침 개정이 핀테크 사업에 미치는 영향을 중심으로 -", 강원법학, 49, pp.617~654 (2016), 비교법학연구소[DOI]
- 맹수석, "IT금융거래와 금융소비자보호방안 - 전자금융거래법 제9조를 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 29(1), pp.9~36 (2018), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 안수현, "영국의 핀테크관련 법제도와 지원정책 : 지급결제산업을 중심으로", 강원법학, 49, pp.179~219 (2016), 비교법학연구소[DOI]
- 이준희, "인터넷전문은행 관련 법률적 쟁점에 관한 소고", 기업법연구, 30(1), pp.77~106 (2016), 한국기업법학회
- 이효경, "ICT시대의 핀테크 규제에 관한 고찰-최근 일본의 금융규제의 동향을 중심으로-", 상사법연구, 35(1), pp.117~153 (2016), 한국상사법학회[DOI]
- 정경영, "암호통화(cryptocurrency)의 본질과 스마트계약(smart contract)에 관한 연구", 상사법연구, 36(4), pp.109~150 (2018), 한국상사법학회[DOI]
- 최문희, "독일의 핀테크(Fintech)의 現狀과 規制 - 대출형 크라우드(Crowdlending)에 대한 법적 쟁점을 중심으로 -", 강원법학, 49, pp.137~177 (2016), 비교법학연구소[DOI]
- 금융위원회, "4차 산업혁명 금융분야 TF 제1차회의 논의내용", ~ (2017)
- 금융위원회, "P2P 대출에 대한 T", F팀을 구성하여 투자자 보호 방안 등을 검토, 2016
- 금융위원회, "P2P 대출 가이드라인 연장 시행", ~ (2018)
- 국회도서관, "최신 외국입법정보: 미국･일본 규제 샌드박스 입법례", ~ (2019)
- 중앙일보, "써티 테크: P2P에 100만원 넣고 열흘 만에 원리금 5966원", ~ (2016)
- 조선일보, "“현금 안 받는다”… 중국 노인들, 모바일 결제 봉변", ~ (2019)
- 파이낸셜뉴스, "100일 맞은 ‘규제 샌드박스’… 26건 통과해 영국의 2배", ~ (2019)
- 파이낸셜뉴스, "금융분야 블록체인 규제샌드박스 1호 ‘디렉셔널’, 클레이튼에서 가동", ~ (2019)
- "Bundesanstalt Für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, BaFin Perspektives" (2018)[URL]
- "Bundesanstalt Für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, Consumer warning: The risks of initial coin offerings" (2017)[URL]
- Chris Brummer, "Fintech and the Innovation Trilemma", Geo. L.J, 107, pp.235~ (2019)
- Christian Flasshoff, "Distributed Ledger Technology: Blockchain as a Basis for Information Security, BaFin", BaFin Perspektives, pp.33~ (2018)
- Christopher Woolard, "A UK Perspective on FinTech Regulation: What is (and is not) a Sandbox?", Fintech L. Rep. NL, 19(6), pp.3~ (2016)
- "Q4 2017 State of Blockchain"[URL]
- Corkery, Michael, "As LendingClub Stumbles, Its Entire Industry Faces Skepticism", The New York Times, ~ (2016)
- Dirk A. Zetzsche, "Regulating A Revolution: From Regulatory Sandboxes to Smart Regulation", Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L, 23, pp.31~81 (2017)
- Douglas W. Arner, "The Evolution of Fintech: A New Post-Crisis Paradigm?", Geo. J. Int'l L, 47, pp.1271~ (2016)
- Eric Naing, "Fintech firms already follow banking rules, tech industry says", 2016 WL 3725180CQ Roll Call Washington Banking Briefing, ~ (2016)
- Felix Hufeld, "Supervision and Regulation in the Age of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence", BaFin Perspektives (2018)
- "Smart Data – Smart Privacy? Impulse für eine interdisziplinär rechtlich-technische Evaluation"[URL]
- Kevin C. Taylor, "Fin Tech Law: A Guide to Technology Law in the Financial Services Industry" (2014), Bloomberg BNA
- Krainer, J., "The Separation of Banking and Commerce", Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Review (2000)
- Kurt Mattson, "“Fintech” is the New Buzz Word in Banking, 04-15-16 BSA", AML Update 2
- "Malta Blockchain Strategy Revealed: Malta's Blockchain Strategy will attract Fintech companies to the island"[URL]
- Oliver Fußwinkel, "Blockchain Technology—Thoughts on Regulation, BaFin", BaFin Perspektives (2018)
- Pál Belényesi, "Country Report Sweden : Digital Competitiveness and Digital Evolution- Why Are Nordic Countries Ahead?", Eur. Networks L. & Reg. Q, 3, pp.215~ (2015)
- Paul A. Samuelson, "Economics" (1985), McGraw-Hill Book Company
- Paul Anderson, "Peer-to-Peer lending in the UK: What is it, what is its size, who are the players and what is the regulatory framework?", Fintech L. Rep. NL, 18(6), pp.1~ (2015)
- "The Only Thing Useful Banks Have Invented in 20 Years is the ATM" (2009)[URL]
- Robert Baldwin, "Introduction in: A Reader On Regulation" (1998), Oxford University Press
- "Sachverständigenrat für Verbraucherfragen, „Digitale Souveränität – Gutachten des Sachverständigenrats für Verbraucherfragen“"[URL]
- Sam Robinson, "Crypto-assets under review: ESMA and EBA publish their reports on regulation of cryptoassets" (2019), Comp. & Risk
- "State aid: Commission approves Italian scheme to bridge digital divide in Lombardy", EU: Press IP, 140, pp.2010, ~
- T. Daintith, "A Regulatory Space Agency", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 9 (1989)
- The European Commission, "Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM(2010) 245", ~
- "Guide to Digital Tokens Offering"[URL]
- UK Financial Conduct Authority, "Regulatory Sandbox", ~ (2015)